Here's a link to a thread discussing the fact that there are federal laws about obscene material, and a Harvard law student is dropping this info on 4chan. Take it for what you will and there is no proof that this person is or has claimed to be Marina Abramovic's niece as the title in v/politics suggests.
https://voat.co/v/politics/2651834
To those who are saying that there are no laws about obscene material and arguing about hard core porn, these are usually consenting adults, so this shouldn't be up for debate on v/Pizzagate.
This is related to Pizzagate because of obscene YouTube material such as Elsagate and Pinkie Pie that are attractive to children, and parents aren't aware of this stuff or choose to ignore the fact their children are being exposed to Satanic/pedo/MK Ultra conditioning.
Here are links to the other two threads I've created on this, but have deleted:
1) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2652414
2) https://voat.co/v/pizzagate/2651912
Important info from the comments section of the 2nd deleted thread from @Pizzalawyer -
Well I would have to dig deeper on this matter to give a proper answer. But there is this seldom used concept of "private attorney general" where a private citizen can bring a civil action to enforce the law when the public attorney general fails to do so. We rate movies, dont we, for sexual or violent content. Why is there no.enforceable rating for Internet material. Anyone can google Stormy Daniels nude photos and thereby discover a cashe of images that would make Hugh Hefner blush if he were alive.
The statutes cited above seem to.refer to.modes of labeling content that entices children, rather than censoring or prohibiting such content. Its a very sticky issue and ultimately it falls upon parents to monitor computer use, movies, etc. Obscenity is so out of control, it is impossible to enforce the well meaning laws. We cant even keep.up with the pedophile problem which is more harmful..
Interesting to know that Marina has relatives in the USA. Marina does live shows; can she be stopped like lap.dancers in a bar? Perhaps she can be labeled X rated and keep children away. Maybe we need new laws re: SRA though Satanism alone would probably be protected under religious freedom. Sigh.. .its all.too depressing.
view the rest of the comments →
Are_we__sure ago
Hi, all your posts on this have been very unclear and confusing.
What you seem to be asking is can obscenity law be applied to material like Elsagate or Pinkie Pie?
Is this the crux of the issue? Did I miss anything?
Enigmatic_Continuum ago
Yeah, that's it. Why is it you and the other shills are the only ones who couldn't see this? The genuine PG investigators identified this immediately.
Are_we_sure ago
Perhaps because you surrounded your post with extraneous and confusing nonsense.
I don't know what Pinkie Pie is, but the Elsagate/Toy Freaks stuff was not illegal.
Anthony Jeselnik's jokes are not illegal.
No federal prosecutor in the country would try to say that they are.
If you think these are legally obscene as oppossed being obscene in a colloquial sense, please lay out a case with a specific example that violates the Miller test.
Enigmatic_Continuum ago
It's nice to see you pandering to the amoral people in society.
Why do we even have movie and videogame ratings (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17)? You've heard of the watershed in relation to TV programming times, right? Why do TV programs have warnings that the program may not be suitable for some viewers?
It's nice to know you have no problem with YouTube funneling obscene materials to children and using keywords to target them to ensure they're being viewed by children.
Are_we_sure ago
Wtf are you talking about?
Movie ratings are not laws. They are put out by the MPAA which is an industry group.
https://www.mpaa.org/film-ratings/
You keep stating without evidence that YouTube is showing obscene material. You need to back that claim up. You are assuming facts not in evidence.
Also whether or not YouTube should have a ratings system is a separate issue from is some video or some tweet legally obscene?
Enigmatic_Continuum ago
More reading comprehension issues from you...
I didn't say the ratings were laws.
Have you ever heard of the FCC?
The FCC, however, does have enforcement responsibilities in certain limited instances. For example, the Courts have said that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be banned entirely. It may be restricted, however, in order to avoid its broadcast when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. Between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. (when there is the greatest likelihood that children may be watching,) airing indecent material is prohibited by FCC rules. Broadcasters are required to schedule their programming accordingly or face enforcement action. Similarly, the Commission has stated that profane material is prohibited between 6 A.M. and 10 P.M. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/fcc-and-freedom-speech
Federal law prohibits obscene, indecent and profane content from being broadcast on the radio or TV. That may seem clear enough, but determining what obscene, indecent and profane mean can be difficult, depending on who you talk to.
In the Supreme Court's 1964 landmark case on obscenity and pornography, Justice Potter Stewart famously wrote: "I know it when I see it." That case still influences FCC rules today, and complaints from the public about broadcasting objectionable content drive the enforcement of those rules.
In other words, if you "know it when you see it" and find it objectionable, you can tell the FCC and ask us to check into it.
Deciding what's obscene, indecent or profane
Each type of content has a distinct definition:
Obscene content does not have protection by the First Amendment. For content to be ruled obscene, it must meet a three-pronged test established by the Supreme Court: It must appeal to an average person's prurient interest; depict or describe sexual conduct in a "patently offensive" way; and, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Indecent content portrays sexual or excretory organs or activities in a way that does not meet the three-prong test for obscenity.
Profane content includes "grossly offensive" language that is considered a public nuisance.
Factors in determining how FCC rules apply include the specific nature of the content, the time of day it was broadcast and the context in which the broadcast took place.
Broadcasting obscenecontent is prohibited by law at all times of the day. Indecent and profane content are prohibited on broadcast TV and radio between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience. https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-profane-broadcasts
Looks like YouTube needs to be held liable under these circumstances. Although, we all know that laws and regulations haven't caught up with technology. It's time this happened.
JohnDavidPodesta ago
You have conveniently missed the portion which explicitly expresses that the portrayal can occur in the written form.
Enigmatic_Continuum ago
When did we discuss written form? I thought we were talking about videos such as Elsagate. I don't believe in banning any books by the way, but I'm not including graphic novels and comics when I say this. Only the written word.
JohnDavidPodesta ago
Grounds for a class action Lawsuit against the corporate entity Youtube for their wilful or grossly negligent role in the exploitation of minors.
"Elsagate" is a disturbing phenomenon which was uncovered through the intensive research of members of the public.
We will also consider within the preparatory affidavit, violations of obscenity laws by celebrities James Gunn, Rian Johnson and Anthony Jeselnik on the public platform which has no age limit in place for membership. The site does feature a censorship for explicit visual content but does not carry the same feature for the written word, which introduced the tweets by way of retweets and likes and also potentially followers, to an audience of minors. This is a serious crime which because of it's cybernetic nature, should best be sent to an international criminal court.
Obscenity is not protected under First Amendment rights to free speech, and violations of federal obscenity laws are criminal offences. The U.S. courts use a three-pronged test, commonly referred to as the Miller test, to determine if given material is obscene. Obscenity is defined as anything that fits the criteria of the Miller test, which may include, for example, visual depictions, spoken words, or written text..
In Miller v. California (1973) - the currently-binding Supreme Court precedent on the issue - the Court ruled materials were obscene if they appealed, "to a prurient interest", showed "patently offensive sexual conduct" that was specifically defined by a state obscenity law, and "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."
Elsagate For example, using a cartoon character or children´s television program in the domain of a website that contains harmful or obscene material may be punishable under federal law. http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1532983749398.png
CEOS’s Role The Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (CEOS) remains dedicated to the enforcement of federal obscenity laws. CEOS attorneys work with the High Technology Investigative Unit (HTIU), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and United States Attorney´s Offices throughout the country to investigate and prosecute violations of federal obscenity law. The use of the Internet to distribute obscenity has blurred traditional notions of jurisdiction. CEOS maintains a coordinated, national-level law enforcement focus to help coordinate nationwide investigations and initiatives. Given the importance of community standards under the Miller test, however, CEOS recognizes that the full commitment and support of local United States Attorney´s Offices, who best know local community standards, are absolutely essential to the federal obscenity enforcement efforts.
CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO U.S. FEDERAL LAW ON OBSCENITY 18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property 18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter 18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters 18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes 18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language 18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution 18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter 18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children 18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture 18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television 18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions 18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors 18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet 18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet
The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion); Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).
The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C).
archive: http://archive.is/36aok open: http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/180601986 .
Enigmatic_Continuum ago
That's the long form f what I posted. Are you saying you're one of the good guys and are directly helping to go after those involved with Elsagate and the celebrities you stated?